PFAS Litigation Updates



The world of PFAS litigation is quickly evolving. As regulatory scrutiny of these compounds increases, so, too, will the body of associated case law. From class actions to multidistrict litigation, this section will regularly highlight developments in PFAS-related litigation.

Content in this section does not reflect the opinion of Alston & Bird or its attorneys.

Please note, a subscription may be required to view some of this content.



California Attorney General Files Suit Against 3M Company and Other Chemical Companies for PFAS Use

The Office of Attorney General of California filed a civil complaint against 3M Company and other chemical companies, alleging that the defendant chemical companies knew or should have known that PFAS chemicals are toxic and harmful to human health and the environment and that these companies continued to produce these chemicals for use in products and concealed their harmful effects.

November 10, 2022 | State v. 3M Co. (Cal. Super. Ct.)

North Carolina Supreme Court Requires DuPont’s Successor Companies to Address DuPont’s Potential PFAS Liabilities

The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed a lower court’s decision that spinoffs of Historic E. I. du Pont de Nemours (“DuPont”), including the Chemours Company (“Chemours”) and Corteva, Inc. (“Corteva”), share in DuPont’s potential PFAS-related liabilities – despite the spinoff companies never conducting business in North Carolina, never operating the plant at issue, and never made, sold, distributed, or discharged PFAS in North Carolina.

November 4, 2022 | State v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. Case No. 2022-NCSC-110, No. 436A21 (N.C.)

City of Philadelphia Files Suit Against 3M Company and other Chemical Companies Over Alleged Statewide PFAS Pollution

The City of Philadelphia filed a civil complaint against 3M Company, DuPont, and other chemical companies alleging that the chemical defendant companies designed, manufactured, promoted, sold, used, and disposed of PFAS-rich aqueous film-forming foam in Philadelphia, despite allegedly knowing that PFAS was dangerous and toxic.

November 4, 2022 | City of Phila. v. 3M Co. Case No. 221100676 (Phila. Ct. C.P.)

North Carolina Brings Additional AFFF Lawsuits Against Chemical Manufacturers

Two state court complaints were filed in North Carolina arising out of the alleged use of aqueous film-forming foam (“AFFF”) to fight fires at various military air bases. The state is seeking compensation for the costs of investigating, remediating, treating, assessing, and restoring the facilities and waters allegedly contaminated by AFFF products.

October 18, 2022 | State of North Carolina v. 3M Company, et al. Case No. 22-CVS-2812 (Onslow Cnty. Ct.)

Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismissed Suit Against Burger King Involving PFAS in its Whopper and French Fry Packaging

Azman Hussain filed a putative class action suit against Burger King Corporation, which alleged that he and other members were injured by Burger King’s alleged misrepresentations and omissions regarding the presence of PFAS in its food packaging. Burger King, in a motion to dismiss, argued that its use of PFAS in its food packaging was not illegal or unsafe since using PFAS violated neither state nor federal law and that the types of PFAS at issue in the case complied with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act’s food governance regulations. Ultimately, Hussain voluntarily dismissed his suit against Burger King without prejudice.

April 11, 2022 (complaint filed); August 22, 2022 (plaintiff voluntarily dismissed suit) | Hussain v. Burger King Corp. Case No. 4:22-cv-02258 (N.D. Cal.)